It is essential that the pro-Arab lobby in Britain learn to use legislative and regulatory processes to its advantage when trying to combat inaccurate and unfair images that are regularly portrayed by the British media. For more detailed information or advice on specific cases, contact AMW director Judith Brown at Judith@arabmediawatch.com
This document gives you an oversight of the regulatory processes available.
Section 1: Freedom of Information Act
Section 2: Appealing to the BBC
Section 3: The Communications Act of 2003 and appealing to Ofcom
Section 4: Using the Press Complaints Commission
Section 1: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Britain has been called “the most secretive state in the so-called developed world with hundreds of laws prohibiting disclosure of information.” The British media has traditionally had more restrictions placed on it by law than in many other democracies, and claims that British public life rests on a ‘need-to-know’ principle, and that generally the electorate is regarded as not needing to know.
To date, only lobby groups such as Charter 88 and Liberty tackle this issue. Criminal offences to prevent disclosure to the press include official secrets, obscenity, blasphemy and sedition, as well as laws imposing specified reporting restrictions. Civil laws include libel, breach of confidence and contempt of court.
The judiciary has shown itself to be unsympathetic to many aspects of press freedom and freedom of information: for example, it has used prior restraint by interlocutory (gagging) injunctions.
When New Labour was elected to power in 1997, a manifesto promise was to provide a Freedom of Information (FoI) Act to remedy what many people viewed as the excessive secretiveness of official bodies. The Bill was eventually passed in 2000, and came into force in January 2005.
The disclosure of information applies to all public bodies, and to some private sector activities, for example public service contracts with private providers. However there is information that, for a variety of reasons, has exemption from disclosure, such as security information and some court records.
Many claim the public is still being denied access to information that it has a right to know, and many journalists claim there is still too much secrecy and that this affects press freedom.
However generally, there has been much better access to information, although many of the disclosures point to maladministration or procedural wrongdoings at central or local government level, rather than stories that challenge any fundamental assumptions or ‘ideologies’ implicit in the editorial agendas in many parts of the media, such as institutional Islamophobia, Zionism, or particular entrenched nationalistic/military attitudes.
The contest for information is not necessarily fought between governments and the media, as many media operators have their own reasons for keeping certain practices hidden.
For example, the meetings between the prime minister and the head of News International, Rupert Murdoch, have been difficult to track, and so far requests for this information have been refused under the FoI Act, with Blair stating that these meetings were of a private nature, and Murdoch has not volunteered such information either.
Here, media and political elites share a common interest in keeping certain information hidden from public view. Instead, individual journalists across the media spectrum and some newspapers such as the Guardian and the Independent, which both have a tradition of challenging some aspects of established opinion, prepared carefully for the introduction of the Act and have used it to source information and media scoops.
However, some information on Arab issues remains restricted from the public arena and is exempt from the demands of the Act, particularly relating to ongoing conflict in the Arab world.
There have been controversial incidents relating to information concerning the war on Iraq, where after intense media interest the information eventually moved into the public arena by means other than disclosure under the Act.
These include the resignation letter of Elizabeth Winslow, a government legal adviser who resigned because of the government’s involvement in the Iraq war, and the legal advice to the government by Lord Goldsmith on the war’s legality.
These controversial disclosures that arose from the use of the Act, rather than from the Act itself, may have been an unwitting and unplanned side-effect to the broadening of access to information, hence demonstrating that learning to use the Act in sensitive areas is still worthwhile.
The British government can and does still use ‘gagging’ injunctions to stop other types of information from entering the public arena. For example, even after the Act was implemented, it interceded to stop the media from printing information concerning the threat by US President George Bush to bomb the Al Jazeera headquarters in Qatar.
These types of restrictions to information are illegal in many countries, including the US where, notwithstanding the constitutional right to information, there are unspoken ‘rules’ that successfully censor what is reported, and to a lesser extent such hidden ‘rules’ of disclosure also further restrict reports in the UK.
The government also has the power to restrict access by changing rules and laws to restrict information. It has been reported as encouraging civil servants to keep more information in their personal files so that it is not available for media and public scrutiny.
It is possible that more public organisations will also start using these techniques if they find that disclosure causes them embarrassment or forces them to take action they do not want to take.
Nonetheless, the Act offers opportunities to those who want more openness. The unwillingness of the British media, either because of lack of background knowledge or motivation, to seek out certain types of information makes it essential for organisations such as Arab Media Watch to learn to use the Act as an important resource in its quest for justice and equality.
Using the Act
100,000 public bodies are subject to the new Act, including government departments, local authorities, NHS bodies, schools, colleges, universities, the police, armed forces, museums, quangos, regulators, advisory bodies, publicly-owned companies, the devolved assemblies, and parliament. There are exceptions, such as courts, security and intelligence services, and strangely, the Press Complaints Commission.
It is important that if an organisation says ‘no’ to a request for information, the Arab lobby should ask them to reconsider their position, citing the Act. For example, the BBC refused to allow Malcolm Balen’s report on the coverage of the Middle East conflict to enter the public arena. This should have been challenged by organisations such as AMW.
Using the law is simple. You send an email, fax or letter to the department describing the information you want, and specifying whether you want the information in print, email, or to view it in person. The request should be sent to the FoI officer, or directly to the person who handles the matter. You do not have to mention the FoI Act, although it is better to do so.
Old files, which up to now have been secret for 30 years, also have to be disclosed. The authority has up to 20 working days to respond, although there have been many examples of information taking much longer to be extracted, with some people stating that it has taken many months to get the information they want.
The costs you incur generally are only photocopying, printing and postage costs, although there are costs for retrieval of more expensive information, currently for information costing over £450, or £600 (depending on the type of organisation) to retrieve. The costs are currently under review, and it is rumoured that they are set to increase in the near future.
The information you want can be exempted from disclosure, and the organisation can cite reasons why such information should not enter the public arena, such as defence, international relations, law enforcement, commercial interests, or the economy.
If you have been refused information, the authority to whom you put the request should tell you why disclosure is not in the public interest. You can ask for your request to be to a higher level within the authority itself, saying why you think the decision is wrong.
After that, you can complain to the Information Commissioner, whose decisions are legally binding, and he can force organisations to reveal information. However, one contentious part of the legislation is that a government minister can veto and override the Commissioner’s opinion.
Persistence and patience can be rewarded and get results. For example, recently the School of Oriental and African Studies was forced to respond to a request on its investments, and after disclosure, it was obliged to reconsider its position on investments that did not tie in with its core objectives. The Arab lobby has not yet been successful in forcing hidden information into the public arena, but now is the time to consider what we need in order to further our case, and we should not take ‘no’ for an answer if we are refused. Instead, we should follow up all legal channels at our disposal.
One difficulty that arises if applicants become more adept at gaining information, and information released embarrasses the government in some way, the government can alter the law to make access more difficult. Currently, access to information is being reviewed. The Campaign for Freedom of Information believes that added restrictions, planned for 2007, would be extremely severe for journalists, campaigners and anyone taking a serious interest in the work of a public authority.
If you need advice in following up a request for information on Arab or media issues, please contact Judith@arabmediawatch.com.
Further information on the FoI Act:
Freedom of Information Act: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm
Campaign for Freedom of Information www.cfoi.org.uk
Section 2: BBC COMPLAINTS AND APPEAL PROCEDURES
The BBC aims for accurate, robust and impartial journalism, and audience studies have demonstrated that the BBC is indeed a main source of information and the most trusted media source in Britain. However, this does not mean that its output goes unchallenged.
Indeed, as everyone receiving TV is obliged to pay their licence fee and cannot withdraw their custom, the BBC is a particular target for complaints from those who view any part of its output as unsatisfactory. At the same time, its status as a trusted source of news makes different interest groups compete for the BBC to portray their particular version of ‘truth’.
This has made the corporation particularly vulnerable to interference from successive governments, who not only set the licence fee, but also the rules of the BBC’s operating Charter. Additionally, at a time of media turmoil, with many changes planned, including the move from analogue to digital transmission, the BBC’s future position as the main public service broadcaster is uncertain.
The BBC complaints procedure came under specific scrutiny in 2004 in a government enquiry known as the Hutton Report. The BBC was heavily criticised, leading to the resignation of the director general and the chairman of the Board of Governors.
The report itself was contentious, with some sections of the media and British public calling it a ‘whitewash’. Following this report, the BBC revised its complaints procedures in 2005. It can be viewed at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
One specific area that results in a large number of complaints is coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The entrenched position of both ‘sides’ has made the BBC very defensive, whilst heavy correspondence takes up a great deal of the time of its complaints unit.
The pro-Israel lobby, including overseas sections, are very active in contacting the BBC over coverage they do not like, generating thousands of complaints. The pro-Palestinian lobby, by comparison, is very weak, uncoordinated and inconsistent. The pro-Israel lobby is very well funded, and can monitor most programmes on a regular basis.
However, despite their funding, I have not seen any empirical studies that demonstrate a bias against Israel, as evidence presented tends to be anecdotal – for example, reports by Trevor Asserson on BBC Watch, which avoided the use of qualitative or quantitative evidence, and instead selected a number of isolated cases to demonstrate his case.
Universities such as Glasgow and Loughborough have conducted impartial empirical research which has demonstrated that the BBC is more likely to use Israeli spokespersons, and is more likely to follow an Israeli agenda. The same results have been demonstrated from quantitative research undertaken by AMW.
Evidence points to the pro-Israel lobby being very active in its relationship with the BBC, and the manner in which it follows up its complaints. Although those who support the Arab position, such as the Council for Arab British Understanding and the Palestinian delegation, have said they believe their low-key approach is more effective, this is not borne out by facts.
It may be that the BBC feels more comfortable with the ‘unpushy’ approach of the pro-Arab lobby, but all evidence points to the corporation being more likely to respond to pressure, and they are not pressured by those who see Palestinians and other Arabs as reported unfairly.
Designing your complaint
Planning an appeal should be in your mind when designing your initial complaint. Interviewees who have been dissatisfied with the BBC response to complaints relating to Middle East coverage often say the complaints department looks for a minor error in the complaint and emphasises it in the reply, ignoring the main body of the complaint.
So in planning your complaint, make sure you are precise and accurate. Make sure your sympathies do not get in the way of your interpretation of BBC output, simply because there is no need to overstate the case, as was shown by the succession of empirical studies mentioned earlier.
Although the BBC claims ‘balance’ and ‘due emphasis’, it does not specify how ‘balance’ is to be achieved, nor how ‘due emphasis’ should be recognised, so there is no formula for proving or disproving anything. That is a barrier you will have to overcome.
A simple mathematical calculation of times given to each viewpoint will not convince the BBC that you have a valid point. It is still worth doing, but you must add other details. If you are following up a radio programme, go to ‘listen again’ and check absolutely carefully. If you are following up a TV programme, try to record it so you can watch again before making the complaint.
Time speakers, note terminology and types of discourse used very carefully. Read online stories by making note of every word. Read up background information from the AMW website or other reliable sources, so you know your case is absolutely correct. If on reflection you think your case is weak, maybe you need to reconsider whether you want a BBC reply. You could just ask for your comment to be logged.
Whatever happens, keep your complaint on file so you can refer to it later if need be. It also helps if you keep a recording of the programme, or even do your own transcript. The BBC provides transcripts of some programmes, so you could ask if it has one.
Write your complaint carefully and politely. Address it to the programme and the complaints department. The address can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/complaints. If you know the email address of the reporter/correspondent, you can send a copy directly to him/her too. Try to frame your complaint in a context if it is appropriate.
For example, if you think the coverage of one item is typical, say why you think it is so, quoting again accurate, precise examples, and make sure the examples you give are backed by exact fact. There have been instances where a BBC reply has indicated that it can only deal with complaints concerning one programme at a time.
However, on checking with BBC personnel in the complaints department, they have assured me this is not the case, and where there is a legitimate reason to link a group of programmes, this should be considered on its merit. Also, if you have a busy life, note in your diary the date by which you should have reasonably expected to have a reply, so that you are prompted to check with the BBC if no reply is forthcoming.
Following up your complaint
The BBC states it will answer your query within 10 working days. However, it has no obligation to do so. This is not a Charter condition or a BBC responsibility, but a self-imposed aim. If you do not have a reply, or if the reply is not to your satisfaction, go back to the person who replied to you and say so.
For example (although this appears to be improving), the BBC often thanks the writer for feedback and says the comments are noted in the daily log, without answering the complaint itself. This is very frustrating and should be followed up.
One difficulty that has been noted by a number of complainants is that their first complaint was concise, but because the BBC reply indicated a lack of understanding, more evidence was given in the second letter which was then termed ‘too much’ to read in view of the BBC’s responsibility for good value to the licence payer.
So try to keep your second response as concise as you can, whilst continuing to present your evidence factually and carefully. Another point made by complainants is that they interpret the first reply as condescending and maybe even humiliating, so they are angry when they write for the second time.
Write your response and wait for a day, re-read it and consider whether your letter is constructive. If it is over-emotional, it may not be in your best interests to send it. Go back to your original complaint and check that all parts were answered. If you have only received a partial reply and parts of your complaint were ignored, make sure you stress those parts that were not answered.
Appealing against unsatisfactory BBC responses
If you do not receive a further reply, or if you are unsatisfied with it (including statements from the BBC complaints department that your letter was ‘too long’ to deal with), you MUST pursue it. Some complainants appear to be ‘banned’ from the normal day-to-day BBC responses because their repeated requests take up time in the complaints department, but if this is so, more reason why you should appeal to a higher authority if you think your point is important.
The pro-Israeli lobby does this very efficiently, as can be seen from going to the BBC website and scrolling through the responses to appeals. There are repeated instances recorded where pro-Israeli complainants take issues right up to the Board of Governors, whereas Palestinian supporters appear very rarely in these lists.
I have received huge piles of correspondence from people who support the Palestinian case, and some of the points they make are excellent and replies inadequate. But for many reasons they choose not to follow up unsatisfactory or incomplete responses, when the case they raised merited further BBC investigation.
The next step is the Editorial Complaints Unit, where you should appeal within 12 weeks of receiving your unsatisfactory reply. One complainant reported that he asked for unsatisfactory replies to be forwarded to the ECU, but this request was totally ignored; an official AMW appeal to the ECU appeared to be obstructed for many months and needed much perseverance to get a reply. So make sure to keep copies of letters, and if need be, send the appeal by registered post.
If you do not have your appeal acknowledged, then contact Ofcom or your MP to pursue this; evidence of posting would be important in this instance. You could also contact Malcolm Balen at the BBC, who overseas Middle East coverage and is often helpful as a facilitator.
This may not be a purposeful lack of acknowledgement, as the BBC is a large organisation and there could be a simple explanation, such as an incorrect address put on your letters or emails.
If you are not satisfied with the ECU response, the last appeal is to the BBC Trust Editorial Standards Committee (ESC), which you have to make within 8 weeks. Repeat your concerns, and also give evidence to back your claim that the ECU response was inadequate. Again, check carefully to make certain that you are totally accurate in your claim. Even if your complaint is not upheld, there may be benefits, such as a recommendation of the use of less confusing language in later BBC reports. If you need advice on appealing against any BBC reply that you consider inadequate, write to Judith@arabmediawatch.com.
If the complaint is related to a misrepresentation of an individual person, you can also approach the charity Media Wise at www.mediawise.org.uk for specific advice on how to represent your personal case. Unfortunately, on issues such as impartiality, bias and inaccuracy, there is no external adjudicator that can assist you in an appeal to the BBC.
However, the Board of Governors (since replaced by the BBC Trust) has recently undertaken a study on Middle East coverage and is in a position to show new understanding, so appellants may now get a more sympathetic hearing when they point out unfair Arab representations. It is thus worthwhile taking your complaints through the full process.
Section 3: THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND OFCOM
One recent new piece of legislation is the Communications Act of 2003. Until December 2003, media and communications legislation had grown in a piecemeal nature to meet each new development in media and communications technology.
The new Bill consolidated earlier legislation and formed a new regulatory body, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), to take over from the five previous broadcasting regulators. This was a bold, far-reaching piece of legislation that was intended to change the face of broadcasting and telecommunications industries in Britain. Nevertheless, its aims and potential effects are controversial.
Groups representing the public and journalists had a vested interest in undertaking high-profile lobbying prior to the passing of the Act, whereas meetings between the government and commercial broadcast channels were hidden from public view.
However, documents have been accessed that reveal meetings between BskyB officials and the government during the crucial five-month period of the Act’s passage through parliament. One example of their influence was when BskyB lobbyists were concerned about the specific duty placed on Ofcom to ensure plurality.
In reply to their concerns, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport reassured BskyB that Ofcom would not be allowed to block newspaper proprietors from taking over Channel 5. This might refer to Rupert Murdoch’s ambition to own a Fox-style media channel in Britain, which would present obvious disadvantages to minorities such as Arabs, who would like their views more widely heard via the media.
The Act brought down barriers to media ownership, allowing overseas giants to purchase companies such as ITV and Channel 5, relaxed rules on cross-media ownership, and abolished earlier restrictions on radio ownership, thus demonstrating the influence of BskyB operators on shaping media legislation.
Government officials said the duty of Ofcom was to “favour light-handed regulation”, which will inevitably benefit owners and major media organisations more than journalists or audiences.
If you would like more information on how to protest about the current trends in the media that, in the end, cause disadvantage to minorities such as Arabs, go to the website of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom on www.cpbf.org.uk.
Ofcom
Although Ofcom has a department responsible for content and standards, staffed by 60 individuals, there are 326 staff members in the competition and markets and strategy departments, thus demonstrating Ofcom’s relatively minor interest in quality and programming and its major function as an economic regulator.
For example, Ofcom is committed to reducing commercial broadcasters’ obligations, renamed as ‘burdens’ in the Act, whilst at the same time the BBC is subject to increased regulation. Those who support the principles of Public Service Broadcasting (PSB) have been alarmed at some of the potential consequences of the Act.
At a media conference in 2005, Ofcom partner Robin Foster summarised the outcomes of the review: “…the Act requires us to have regards for funds available and costs of provision – a clear indication that our work should not be about wish fulfilment, but based on the economic realities of the changing broadcasting sector.”
He outlined what he thought PSB had achieved, the public desire for it to continue, and how it should be defined, noting that “…if we do nothing the BBC will over time become a near monopoly provider of PSB.”
He commented that this was undesirable because plurality drove up broadcasting standards, and suggested that this might be done by providing a public service publisher that would have no commercial pressures, but would provide quality programmes in an innovative manner in the style of Channel 4, for various parts of the digital and on-demand platforms.
There was no indication how this would affect BBC funding or whether the public, trades unions, or other commercial providers would have input into its characteristics and functions.
Ofcom has not opened the issue of the value of plurality in PSB to public debate, nor has it demonstrated that after the switch over to digital, whether there will be sufficient funds to provide the same quality of programming and current affairs that currently inform the public.
Clearly, the main aim of Ofcom is to ensure a smooth passage to deregulation, rather than ensure high-quality programming to consumers of British broadcasting.
Ofcom does have a role in evaluating complaints from audiences who claim that a specific programme was harmful, offensive, misleading, or raised an issue of impartiality, accuracy or contained inappropriate commercial activities. As explained earlier, it does not have any main function relating to BBC complaints.
At a further media conference in 2004, Ofcom representatives said they dealt with 13,000 complaints a year. If the Code is breached, conflictual issues are put to adjudication, the complainant and provider meet, and both can have legal representation. Ofcom can impose certain sanctions, such as forcing an item off the air, or altering the conditions of the licence.
Muslims present at this media conference expressed a lack of confidence in Ofcom’s ability to handle Muslim grievances concerning accuracy and bias. Certainly, the definition of factors that break Ofcom’s Code is narrow, and thus limits issues that can be taken to adjudication. I invited Ofcom to comment on this lack of confidence, but they declined.
Complaints procedures
Despite its faults, Ofcom has the advantage of being an external adjudicator, not part of the system of production. Its range, however, is limited. Its area of responsibility is the commercial TV operators in UK, and then only after the broadcast has occurred. There is no procedure to stop an offensive programme being put on air. For further details of the broadcasting code under which it operates and the complaints procedure, go to http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/.
As with the BBC, it may be preferable to contact the independent TV company concerned first, using the same system as described under the BBC section of this document, and you can then appeal to Ofcom if you are unsatisfied with the quality of response.
There are several sections under which you might want to pursue your concerns, such as the sections on religion, due impartiality and due accuracy and prominence of views, fairness, or even commercial references, depending on the nature of the complaint. Details of how to appeal are found on Ofcom’s website address, mentioned above.
One disadvantage to individuals is the cost of employing legal representation should this be considered appropriate, as commercial providers obviously have deeper pockets. This can disadvantage ordinary audience members and small organisations such as AMW who want to challenge damaging programmes.
The commercial operators, who are not viewed in the same manner as the BBC, are often not put under such intense pressure as the public service providers, from either the Arab lobby or the pro-Israel lobby. However, ITV and Channel 4 currently still have the same public service obligations under their licence agreements, and hence should be challenged if reporting is inaccurate or biased.
In particular, Channel 4 often presents minority viewpoints, and its alternative offering of minority perspectives should be supported by thoughtful Arabs who enjoy its programming stance. Ofcom can be approached to express satisfaction with programme quality and accuracy when it is felt that the pro-Israel lobby or other such interest groups are attacking a particular broadcaster or programme unfairly.
Again, if you appeal to Ofcom you can ask Judith@arabmediawatch.com for assistance with preparing your appeal, or if it is an individual who has been inaccurately or unfairly represented, he/she can approach Media Wise at www.mediawise.org.uk.
Section 4: PRESS COMPLAINTS COMMISSION
Ofcom has no function relating to regulation of the press, apart from a role in mergers and acquisitions. Instead a voluntary body, the Press Complaints Commission (PCC), has the task of enforcing a Code of Practice that was written by the newspaper industry. Details of the PCC can be found at www.pcc.org.uk. In order to increase circulation, newspapers will always try to push stories to the edge of the acceptable, and the PCC has to define that line.
It is an adjudicator that does not monitor the press, and has no powers of awarding compensation. Despite claims that each complainant is treated equally, the PCC will inevitably be more motivated to listen to politicians who have the power to legislate and restrict press independence. However, any conscious or unconscious deference on the part of the PCC towards the government is unclear and not researched.
The PCC currently has eight members from the press and nine lay members, some of whom have past experience within sections of the media. There is a tension between members of minority groups, who believe they suffer discrimination and criticise the PCC because it cannot dictate to the press.
The PCC’s role is to protect individuals, not groups or religions. Therefore, its function is limited with regard to Muslim and Arab issues. A PCC representative saw it as an inevitability: “There is always a conflict of freedoms in a democracy. We have to recognise this and accept some of the negative aspects, providing one’s privacy and security are not damaged.”
The impression is that individuals working within the PCC are genuinely committed to a sense of fairness, whilst accepting that in a less-than-perfect world, their role is limited because of the society in which the PCC functions.
There are causes for genuine concern amongst those who would like to see greater transparency at the PCC. For example, Barry White of Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom stated that the PCC has been excluded from disclosing its inner workings under the Freedom of Information Act.
That means that complainants cannot find out how decisions are reached. This lack of transparency is significant to groups such as Muslims and Arabs, who are often misrepresented by the press and are frustrated by their lack of success in their appeals to the PCC.
The advantage of the lack of information on the process for complainants is that it gives less publicity to their case, and if individuals who are maligned want to retain their privacy, this can work in their favour.
Another advantage of the PCC is that it is free, and it also has consistently had a rapid turnaround in dealing with complaints. It has its own advice line, so not only can you complain, but PCC officials can and will advise you on how to present your complaint; the PCC is user friendly and accessible.
Its aim is to bring the two sides together in a non-confrontational way so a solution can be found. You can see the press Code of Practice on their website, so you can work out for yourself whether you think you have a case, and under what category your rights have been breached.
Again, the details of how to appeal are on the PCC website. They advise that initially you contact the editor directly, then put in an appeal to the PCC if you are unsatisfied with the editorial response to your concern. You can put in an appeal up to two months after the publication of the article.
There are many restrictions on the powers of the PCC. For example, groups such as Arabs cannot appeal if articles are derogatory (anti-Arab) because PCC power is limited to the representation of individuals, and comment by newspaper columnists is often excluded because this is considered an opinion rather than a factual report.
However, many individual Arabs have had articles with erroneous information about them printed. Examples explained to me include Hanan Ashrawi, Sheikh Qaradawi, and Yasser Arafat. Whilst individuals, Arab or otherwise, may have some negative features described by the media that are accurate and not distorted, any part of their description that is inaccurate and misleading gives them an opportunity for an appeal.
The PCC also has no power to ask for redress, such as damages or fines to the offending publication. What it can ask for is a correction, which should be printed with ‘due prominence’. They have no powers to enforce a right of reply, but many newspaper owners do so. If a right of reply has already been awarded, the PCC may state that no further action needs to be taken.
Right of Reply – PCC and Ofcom
Although newspapers usually comply with the Code of Practice, this does not prevent the same papers from being equally unfair but more cautious with language in later articles, which keeps them on the right side of the Code but still raises doubt in the minds of the reader, and feeds Arabophobic, Islamophobic and xenophobic attitudes held by some readers.
Currently, a right of reply is not a statutory obligation, although there have been eight attempts to get a Bill through Parliament. The latest (unsuccessful) attempt, in February 2005, proposed a system that would create a level playing field, putting legal redress within the scope of all people who have been unfairly maligned.
Even with a prominently printed reply, if the aggrieved persons are from a minority group, their opinions may not be taken as seriously as the ones in the offending article. The original article is more likely to be seen as fact if the opinions expressed coincide with ‘truths’ that are commonly held because of the Orientalist discourses to which British people are exposed.
In the broadcast media, a right of reply is even more difficult to obtain. One Arab embassy pointed out to me that when it has been unfairly maligned in a TV programme, sometimes it gets a written apology, but the damage is already done and there is no means of getting redress.
But Media Wise states that if the TV company has agreed it had made a mistake, the maligned people should press to get their view broadcast with equal prominence at a later date, and should not take ‘no’ for an answer. However, a Media Wise representative agreed that this is very difficult with a group who are subjects of widespread discrimination. This is a situation that should be taken up with Ofcom.
This fear of negative consequences for individuals from minority or disadvantaged groups in pressing their complaints demonstrates the media’s power when compared to its audiences or readers, and challenges media theories claiming that a competitive media responds to the demands of its audiences or readership.
The satisfaction of complainants in terms of the efficiency with which their concerns are addressed by the media has not been researched. However, interviewees who regularly write to the media to point out bias or inaccuracies relating to representations of Arabs all expressed dissatisfaction or frustration at the lack or inadequacy of responses.
This dissatisfaction was reported across the broadcasting and print mediums, but the fault lies not only with the media, but also with the Arab population who have not developed skills and understanding of the way various regulatory mechanisms can work for them.
If a newspaper or broadcaster does not agree to a right of reply when it could reasonably be expected, contact Judith@arabmediawatch.com.